Citation Nr: 9828333
Decision Date: 09/22/98 Archive Date: 12/02/98
DOCKET NO. 96-29 441 DATE SEP 22 1998
On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office
in No. Little Rock, Arkansas
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right eye
injury.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
D. Orfanoudis, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from March 1956 to May 1956, and
from August 1958 to May 1959.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on
appeal from an April 1996 rating decision of the North Little Rock,
Arkansas, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), which denied entitlement to service connection for a
right eye injury. The veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement
and perfected a substantive appeal.
REMAND
This matter was previously before the Board in December 1997,
wherein the Board remanded the case to the RO for additional
development, to include a request for a search for additional
service medical records and sick call and morning reports. In this
regard, in response to a request by the RO, the National Personnel
Records Center furnished the entrance and separation examinations
for the first period of active duty. Apparently no pertinent sick
call or morning reports for the first period of active duty were
located. The March 23, 1956 entrance examination showed that the
distant vision in the right eye 100/20. The April 29, 1956
discharge examination showed that the distant vision was 20/20.
The veteran contends that he incurred an injury to his right eye in
the spring of 1956 during basic training at Paris Island, South
Carolina. He asserts that he has sustained a loss of visual acuity
in the right eye as a result of said injury, and that entitlement
to service connection therefor is warranted. A lay statement
submitted by a fellow soldier, and received by VA in March 1996,
indicated that in late March or early April of 1956, the veteran
was hit by a drill instructor at Paris Island, South Carolina, and
was subsequently sent to sick call.
The Board finds that lay statements are competent evidence when
describing an incident, which occurred in service, such as the
reported right eye injury. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492
(1992). The Board further finds the veteran's statements and the
lay statement are credible. The reports of medical examinations
dated in April 1959 and May 1959, at the time of his separation
from active duty, reveal that the veteran's visual acuity was
20/200 for distant vision and near vision was 20/100, uncorrectable
in his right eye. The veteran reported that his right eye was
injured when hit by a sling shot at age 8 and that he had poor
vision in that eye, requiring glasses.
A VA medical record dated in April 1995 shows that the veteran had
complete failure of uncorrected visual acuity at two feet. The
examiner provided a diagnosis of trauma of the right eye with
traumatic cataract and choroid rupture with macular scar.
A May 1998 statement from the veteran indicates that he desires a
copy of the entrance and separation examination reports for his
first period of active duty.
In view of these facts, the Board is of the opinion that additional
development is warranted. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the
following actions:
1. The RO should furnish the veteran the appropriate release of
information forms in order to obtain copies of any additional VA
and private medical records pertaining to treatment for his right
eye, to include any record regarding the injury when he was eight
years old. The RO should obtain all records, which are not on file.
The veteran should be informed that he has the opportunity to
submit any other additional evidence and arguments. See Quarles v.
Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 129, 141 (1992).
2. The RO should take the appropriate action to furnish the veteran
with copies of the entrance and separation examination reports for
his first period of active duty.
3. A VA ophthalmological examination should be conducted in order
to determine the nature, severity, and etiology of any disability
involving the right. The claims folder and a copy of this remand
are to be made available to the examiner in conjunction with the
examination. All tests deemed necessary should be performed. It is
requested that the examiner obtain a detailed history regarding all
right eye injuries, to include at the age of eight and during his
first period of active duty and associated treatment. Following the
examination and in conjunction with a review of the claims folder,
it is requested that the examiner render opinions as to the
following:
a) Whether it is as likely as not that the visual acuity of the
right eye shown at the time of entrance examination for his first
period of active duty was chronically aggravated beyond normal
progression by the reported in service right eye injury? If yes, it
is requested that the examiner, to the extent possible, identify
the degree of aggravation.
b) Whether it is as likely as not that any disability of the right
eye diagnosed, to include cataract and scanting, is related to the
reported eye injury, which occurred during the veteran's first
period of active duty?
A complete rational for any opinion expressed should be included in
the examination report.
Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the issue in appellate
status. If the decision with respect to the claim remains adverse
to the veteran, he and his representative should be furnished with
a supplemental statement of the case and an opportunity to respond.
Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further
appellate consideration. The veteran need take no action until he
is so informed.
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The
law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Veterans Appeals
for additional development or other appropriate action must be
handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits
Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, 302, 108 Stat. 4645,
4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. 5101 (West Supp. 1998) (Historical and
Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL,
M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of
all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See
M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03.
ROBERT P. REGAN
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of
Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of
Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary
order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits
of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. 20.1100(b)(1998).